Appeal No. 2004-0303
Application 09/439,457
use “easily moldable” PTFE variants to form the seal carrier. Indeed, in this respect, all that
Dettmann discloses is the notion that “the injection molding of PTFE is difficult and can be
performed only under special and expensive conditions,” and not the particulars of such method
from which it could be determined whether injection molding of PTFE would be an “annealing”
process as defined by Fingar.
Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that the combined teachings of Fingar and
Dettmann would have provided no suggestion to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the
process of Fingar by injection molding the chemical resistant PTFE diaphragm layer. See
generally, Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531 (“The consistent criterion for
determination of obviousness is whether the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art that [the claimed process] should be carried out and would have a reasonable
likelihood of success viewed in light of the prior art. [Citations omitted] Both the suggestion and
the expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.”);
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of
the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one
or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Therefore, we reverse the ground of
rejection.
1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on
the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007